"intentional elements" vs. "incidental elements" within mnemonic scenes

[TheHumanTim]

Had the beginnings of an interesting discussion HERE and in a previous thread that brought me to this topic.

@fred2 brought up a good question whether a 2-digit PAO, which encodes 6 digits per scene via a 2+2+2 format, is achieving the same result as a 3-digit PO, which also encodes 6 digits per scene via a 3+3 format.

I think the answer is “yes and no.”

The end result is the same, a scene that encodes 6 digits, and the scenes may even look identical in the mind.

Say the 2-digit user has Michael Jordan, Eating, and a Camping Tent as their PAO elements in their scene. They picture their scene just as described. MJ is maybe sitting at a table, chowing down on a big tent.

Lets also say that the 3-digit user has the same person and object, Michael Jordan and the Camping Tent. Now that 3-digit user will likely imagine some sort of action or interaction between those to in order to give their scene life and make it memorable. Lets say this person also imagines Michael Jordan eating the Camping Tent. Lets even say that they picture the exact same mental scene as the PAO person, right down to the table MJ is sitting at.

The scenes may be identical and have the same end result of each encoding 6 digits… BUT, and here’s the important thing in my view… The action of “eating” is an “intentional element” for the 2-digit PAO user, but for the 3-digit PO user it is an “incidental element” of their scene.

I’d define “intentional” elements as aspects of a scene that represent information and must be specifically visualized and recalled in order to successfully encode and decode that information.

“Incidental” elements are non-representative aspects of a scene that serve to add detail or boost the memorability of a scene. They need not be carefully considered, but are more reflexive natural details that the brain fills in almost subconsciously. In both example scenes, the table that MJ is sitting at is an “incidental element.” It doesn’t encode any information and isn’t really a detail that would take any extra time or brainpower to include, it is just there as a natural part of the construction of the complete scene.

This is sort of like picturing a “car” and considering it as a single intentional element, while the details like the wheels, the color, the door handles, etc, would be considered “incidental elements” that wouldn’t count against the total “elements” needed for representing the encoded information.

When considering the effectiveness of a system, I think more weight should be given to the requirement of creating intentional elements than the fact that scenes will end up with comparable amounts of incidental elements.

So therefore, given similar fluency with a system, a 3+3 would, in my mind, cost less in terms of intentional effort than a 2+2+2.

Yes, the 3+3 would require more of an investment of one-time learning effort and be slightly more “expensive” in terms of maintenance cost to keep all of its intentional elements fluent than a 2+2+2 system would be… I suppose its up to the user to decide if that tips the balance away from the difference in ease of use.

Thoughts?

[thinkaboutthebible (Doug)]

@TheHumanTim, you have the right idea I think. But you should use the term efficiency for use of a resource rather than effectiveness which is for accurate results.

There are two parts to the system analysis which I’ve detailed out to the utmost after hearing non-evidence based arguments here on the forum. You, I think, have my published version in the Toolkit. It had been free here on the forum for several years. One is the prep time to master a system and then there is the conversion, association, and retrieval time to think about.

Mastering a 3-digit system in my estimate was close to three years for people like me, although you have been a dedicated student and shortcut that time. The 2-digit system was a matter of weeks by comparison.

The images once converted by that system then need the associations to themselves for creating a scene or a merged visual and then another association to a trigger whether that is the previous visual in a story or a separate list for pegs.

But when managing one vs. two associations between the 3+3 and the 2+2+2, the visualization workload as I called it, is less as you said. It also reduces the complexity of the image which as you approach the Miller number of five (plus or minus two) becomes more effective for recall.

There’s a few other minor issues when merging images but the results will probably be about the same. I like to call what you are saying are incidental elements, the narrative detail that helps to visualize the intentional elements or the datatypes and values that represent the targets of the storage.

I like to separate the datatype as I use many as an intentional element in my visuals. For instance, if I already have a car and two cars are not visually significant (a wreck certainly would be but this is just for an example), then I would use an elaboration like a wicker car or a crying car. That’s why I separated out the datatype values in my Major System Toolkit.

So, long story short, I agree with you,

Doug

[TheHumanTim]

@thinkaboutthebible Thanks for drilling down a bit more into this!

You’re right about the efficiency and effectiveness difference. I have some kind of (ironic) mental block when it comes to remembering the correct usage of those words haha!

All of this tends to come back down to personal preference and tolerance to effort and time demands for specific systems when considering which to use. Most systems can ultimately lead to similar results in terms of speed and accuracy and there are always trades. Complexity in terms of size or scale can be a negative when in learning mode, but a big positive in application mode since it reduces sameness amd allows for less elements needed per digit. Complexity within scenes (adding more elements categories or merging multiples like PAOPA or other expansive scene ideas) can be good as it generates more unique scenes as a whole, but can be a negative when it comes to difficulty in accurate recall. I think everyone should consider these opposing characteristics when deciding on a system, but ultimately not sweat it too much and just get going on practicing one.

[Mike4 (Maike Anthony)]

I like the distinction between intentional and incidental elements. Also, I noticed that maybe this should be differentiated according to whether we’re talking about encoding or reviewing. Some things are intentional during encoding, but aren’t during review. In fact, I have the impression that blocks may be one example of this.

For instance, when you review a locus (in variable image stacking), you don’t need to pay attention to whether or not it’s at the end: paying attention to the scene itself is enough to remember the order. When you review a locus (now that you use PO lists to memorize cards), you don’t need to pay attention to whether it’s a person or an object: you just pay attention to what it is. If someone uses Variable Spatial Encoding, they just need to visualize the locus, but they don’t need to pay attention to where exactly it is since it will be naturally seen.

During encoding, though, we gotta pay attention to the block to memorize, so it isn’t the same as having a single list. Of course, some blocks will take longer than others, so it may still be worth it to use them since they may make the final image much simpler, without requiring much additional training.

About actions, during review, the person will need to pay attention to the action if, and only if, it’s used to encode information, because they need to make sure the action didn’t get switched.

Making this distinction between encoding and reviewing may be important not to conclude that block systems just add more intentional elements to the scene. An alternative would be to divide it into three types of things: intentional elements, incidental elements, and blocks. The first one requires attention during encoding and reviewing. The second one is generated unconsciously. The third one only requires you to pay attention during encoding only, changing the way the story is formed.

[TheHumanTim]

I like those three distinctions!

[fred2 (fred)]

I go along 100% with what you are saying Tim. My only modification however would be to give synonyms to your “intentional elements” and “incidental elements”. I much rather prefer intentional = deliberate elements and incidental = background elements. I know this is just a matter of semantics but the terms deliberate and background just fit better with me than intentional and incidental. But that’s only my “preferred labelling” of the way you’ve explained the system of encoding scenes with elements that act to encode and elements that as and of themselves are merely acting as “background” to the scene you are creating.

As I know you are familiar with the Tamariz Stack I will use the first 4 cards in positions 1 to 4 for purposes of illustrating how I remember them with both deliberate elements (or intentional elements) as you call them and as background elements (or incidental elements) as you call them.

First four cards in sequence are: 4C, 2H, 7D and 3C. Firstly I encode the cards themselves using Major System (ala Harry Lorayne method). The cards are actually read as Club 4, Heart 2, Diamond 7 and Club 3. My images for those cards using traditional Major System are: CaR, HoNey, DuCK, CoMb (notice the b is silent!). For my anchors for the numerical positions of the cards, I use a number-shape method as per @Erol where: 1 = Statue of Liberty, 2 = Swan, 3 = McDonalds (3 = Golden arches) but I rather substitute the clown himself for 3 being, Ronald Mc Donald. My number shape for a 4 is a Flag on a golf course (green), shaped like a 4. So I use the method of paired association and create a mini-video in my mind’s eye as follows:

#1 = The statue of liberty is racing a car at breakneck speed in downtown Manhattan. Note: I have highlighted the deliberate or intentional elements only that gets me to the 4 of Clubs is in the 1st position. In fact in my mental image, I see the Statue of Liberty as a Green character tearing down the streets in New York burning rubber at breakneck speed - all of which are background or incidental elements.
#2 = I see a swan in a pond paddling with all her might trying to get out as she is swimming in honey!
#3 = Ronald McDonald is chopping up a squawking DuCK with a meat cleaver to make a MCDuCK burger for me.
#4 = I am putting towards the Flag with a giant Comb at a windy Royal Cape Golf Course.

I thank you for spelling out your thought processes on the forum. I have never though about the elements (essential and non-essential) that make up my imagery to recall a Tamariz Stack.

I think the more we can define things the better we can understand things. Your thought processes and analysis of what we are doing when we encode scenes to our memory for later recall is spot-on!!